Ukraine Crisis

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by iambiguous »

Going nuclear...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... s-nuclear/

'Talk of total victory aligns well with another recently floated objective: an extended bloodletting of the Russian army. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin asserted on April 25 that the United States wants “to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.” And that fits with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark A. Milley’s prediction that the war will turn into a “protracted conflict … measured in years.”

'Yet crippling Russia’s military or expelling Russia from Ukraine are significantly more dangerous aims than preventing the further loss of Ukrainian territory or, through limited offensive operations, gaining some of it back. Unfortunately, if Russian President Vladimir Putin begins to think that his back is against the wall, he may lash out by directly confronting NATO, intensifying the conventional war in the east, or even using nuclear weapons.

'Keep in mind that while Russia’s campaign has been horrific, it can still get much, much worse. Russia has been fighting with one hand tied behind its back, largely for domestic political reasons. In Putin’s Russia, after all, the conflict has not been described as a war but rather as a “special military operation.” But the worse the battle goes for Putin, the more he will be tempted to mobilize his society to fight it as a full-blown war, despite the political risks of calling up reservists or expanding conscription. Russia has more than three times the population of Ukraine, giving it a hard-to-surmount advantage in any war of attrition, despite Ukraine’s skilled and motivated soldiers. Ukraine should try assiduously to avoid any further mobilization on Russia’s part, yet the West’s expanding war aims make it more likely.

'Even worse, Putin could turn to unconventional weapons, including low-yield nuclear weapons, to stave off defeat. Skeptics might argue that Putin is not suicidal and would never risk nuclear escalation with the West. But Russia is overwhelmingly likely to begin any nuclear escalation — or, for that matter, chemical escalation — inside Ukraine, which would put the onus on the West as to how to respond. With a handful of nuclear weapons Putin could obliterate significant portions of the Ukrainian army, especially if conventional battles forced it to mass in a relatively small area in the east. (To presume that the architect of Bucha would blanch at using nuclear weapons against Ukraine, which cannot respond in kind, is wishful thinking.) All the new heavy weapons flowing to the Ukrainian military would not save it from destruction in this situation, to say nothing of the casualties among Ukrainian civilians.

'Going nuclear would be extremely dangerous for Putin. But if he believes that the West is trying to permanently weaken Russia, will never lift sanctions or even aims to topple his regime (despite repeated denials from Western policymakers), he may become willing to roll the dice. Putin could see escalation as a way to preserve the military as the basis of both his international clout and domestic security.'


Okay, you're Biden. How far would you go in "rolling the dice" to actually win the war and/or to topple Putin?
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by attofishpi »

attofishpi wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 10:44 am Not sure Y small drones arn't used to drop USB sticks across Moscow and other areas with footage of what is actually happening in Ukraine (propaganda)
..and an even better idea, sign Russian up to NATO.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by iambiguous »

From the NYT:

'Russia will cut natural gas supplies to Finland on Saturday, according to Finland’s state energy provider, underscoring the geopolitical fallout as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine spurs one of the most radical redrawings of Europe’s security order in decades.'

The geopolitical fallout. And the more radical the redrawings become the more turbulent the mix of variables become as each state attempts to pin down what the other states are contemplating in regard to their own frame of mind.

Then talk of a global recession. Worse, a global stagflation:

'The world economy is heading into a potentially grim period as rising costs, shortages of food and other commodities and Russia’s continuing invasion of Ukraine threaten to slow economic growth and bring about a painful global slump.'

And, here in America, that doesn't bode well for the Democrats. What if MAGA takes control of the Congress and Trump is back in the White House?

Will America then become an ally of Putin?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by iambiguous »

The Gray Lady takes stock:

'The Senate passed a $40 billion emergency aid package for Ukraine on Thursday, but with a small group of isolationist Republicans loudly criticizing the spending and the war entering a new and complicated phase, continued bipartisan support is not guaranteed.

'Avril Haines, the director of national intelligence, warned the Senate Armed Services Committee recently that the next few months may be volatile. The conflict between Ukraine and Russia could take “a more unpredictable and potentially escalatory trajectory,” she said, with the increased likelihood that Russia could threaten to use nuclear weapons.'


Yes, the ruling class itself is getting nervous. Still, threatening to use nukes and actually precipitating an all-out nuclear war is either more or less probable.

We just don't know.

But those who own and operate the global economy can't help but be increasingly jittery about what makes Putin tick. And about whether Biden and the NATO equivalents might be assuming a too optimistic set of assumptions about how far they can push him.

Me? Well, the one thing I keep coming back to is the Cuban Missile crisis. How palpable the fear was then of a nuclear armageddon, holocaust, apocalypse.

I never expected to see it reprised. But now you know how it was for us back then. Only this time it's not ideological so much as...as what exactly?
promethean75
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by promethean75 »

It's all about the benjamins, bro, never the ideology. Ideologies are intellectual abstractions. Benjamins are about commanding more tangible power and control over property and freedom (of movement). You can be whatever ideologue you wanna be that week, but if you also pullin them benjamins in, you ain't worried bout nuthin
DPMartin
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by DPMartin »

iambiguous wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 6:52 pm The Gray Lady takes stock:

'The Senate passed a $40 billion emergency aid package for Ukraine on Thursday, but with a small group of isolationist Republicans loudly criticizing the spending and the war entering a new and complicated phase, continued bipartisan support is not guaranteed.

'Avril Haines, the director of national intelligence, warned the Senate Armed Services Committee recently that the next few months may be volatile. The conflict between Ukraine and Russia could take “a more unpredictable and potentially escalatory trajectory,” she said, with the increased likelihood that Russia could threaten to use nuclear weapons.'


Yes, the ruling class itself is getting nervous. Still, threatening to use nukes and actually precipitating an all-out nuclear war is either more or less probable.

We just don't know.

But those who own and operate the global economy can't help but be increasingly jittery about what makes Putin tick. And about whether Biden and the NATO equivalents might be assuming a too optimistic set of assumptions about how far they can push him.

Me? Well, the one thing I keep coming back to is the Cuban Missile crisis. How palpable the fear was then of a nuclear armageddon, holocaust, apocalypse.

I never expected to see it reprised. But now you know how it was for us back then. Only this time it's not ideological so much as...as what exactly?
Putin knows Biden is a wuss, the real elephant in the room. it would be completely stupid to make a move on Biden's part, he's a day late and a dollar short besides there's a good chance the Russians did all they could to get Biden in for just that reason. Biden and Biden's son had some difficulties with Ukraine leaders some time back which is another reason the Russians back doored support for Biden. so get the US to give lip service and throw moneys at it as though that will do anything. the Ukraine belongs to Russia they are merely taking it back who freakin cares. the Ukraine's show of resistance is futile and stupid. no body's going to go nuke for the Ukraine's defense. nuclear Armageddon will come, but not over the Ukraine
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by iambiguous »

DPMartin wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 11:11 pm
iambiguous wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 6:52 pm The Gray Lady takes stock:

'The Senate passed a $40 billion emergency aid package for Ukraine on Thursday, but with a small group of isolationist Republicans loudly criticizing the spending and the war entering a new and complicated phase, continued bipartisan support is not guaranteed.

'Avril Haines, the director of national intelligence, warned the Senate Armed Services Committee recently that the next few months may be volatile. The conflict between Ukraine and Russia could take “a more unpredictable and potentially escalatory trajectory,” she said, with the increased likelihood that Russia could threaten to use nuclear weapons.'


Yes, the ruling class itself is getting nervous. Still, threatening to use nukes and actually precipitating an all-out nuclear war is either more or less probable.

We just don't know.

But those who own and operate the global economy can't help but be increasingly jittery about what makes Putin tick. And about whether Biden and the NATO equivalents might be assuming a too optimistic set of assumptions about how far they can push him.

Me? Well, the one thing I keep coming back to is the Cuban Missile crisis. How palpable the fear was then of a nuclear armageddon, holocaust, apocalypse.

I never expected to see it reprised. But now you know how it was for us back then. Only this time it's not ideological so much as...as what exactly?
Putin knows Biden is a wuss, the real elephant in the room. it would be completely stupid to make a move on Biden's part, he's a day late and a dollar short besides there's a good chance the Russians did all they could to get Biden in for just that reason. Biden and Biden's son had some difficulties with Ukraine leaders some time back which is another reason the Russians back doored support for Biden. so get the US to give lip service and throw moneys at it as though that will do anything. the Ukraine belongs to Russia they are merely taking it back who freakin cares. the Ukraine's show of resistance is futile and stupid. no body's going to go nuke for the Ukraine's defense. nuclear Armageddon will come, but not over the Ukraine
I'm sure there is absolutely no possibility whatsoever of this not being correct.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by iambiguous »

Maureen Dowd at the NYT

'During a speech at his presidential library in Dallas, Bush made the mother of all Freudian slips. He denounced “the decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq.” He quickly corrected himself and clarified that he was talking about Vladimir Putin, saying, “I mean of Ukraine.” But then added, shaking his head, “Iraq, too.”'

Forget about Vladimir Putin and George Bush...Ukraine and Iraq.

More to the point, the nature of American foreign policy and Russian foreign policy and Chinese foreign policy has always revolved by and large around one or another rendition of the military industrial complex. That and securing cheap labor, natural resources and markets.

American foreign policy is just that much more flagrantly hypocritical.

And, if there wasn't for the part that revolves around the potential for a nuclear war, Ukraine would just be business as usual.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by popeye1945 »

What is the old saying, things change but ever remain the same? Once the old colonialism of the British and European countries enslaved the world being the ultimate powers of the time. With the first world war the power started to shift and British power transformed into American power and American empire. Empires are concerned with spreading enslaving and self-survival the American empire is the aggressor here using NATO as its tool to threaten Russia. American apple pie is bullshit and as merciless and violent as the British empire ever was. War is the global cottage industry of America and the curse of the world.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by iambiguous »

Mitt Romney in the NYT

'Russia’s foreign minister and its ambassador to the United States have both signaled that Russia’s debacle in Ukraine could lead to a nuclear strike. By claiming that Russia is readying its weapons, by warning of a “serious” risk of nuclear escalation and by declaring “there are few rules left,” they purposefully rattled the ultimate saber. Vladimir Putin himself has noted that he has weapons his opponents do not and that he will “use them, if needed.” Even the C.I.A. director, William Burns, has warned of the possibility that Mr. Putin could use a tactical nuclear weapon, even if there is no “practical evidence” right now to suggest it is imminent. Nevertheless, we should be prepared; the former secretary of state Henry Kissinger has argued that we should give the threat consideration.'

I think we can all agree that Mitt Romney, with an estimated wealth of around $175,000,000, has considerably more to lose than "just folks" if the world stumbles into an all-out nuclear war.

I'm sure that, given a nuclear World War III, there are contingency plans in place to squirrel him and all the rest of the ruling class to a safe place somewhere. But he'd still likely take a big hit financially, right? And there has to be some limit on the number of loved ones authorized to accompany him.

So he and his ilk can't help but be concerned that we might push this rescue Ukraine thing too far.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by popeye1945 »

NUCLEAR WINTER!!!
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by iambiguous »

From the NYT:

'TOKYO — President Biden indicated on Monday that he would use military force to defend Taiwan if it were ever attacked by China, dispensing with the “strategic ambiguity” traditionally favored by American presidents and repeating even more unequivocally statements that his staff tried to walk back in the past.'

All this talk about Putin being a few sandwiches short of a picnic can distract us from the fact that, perhaps, this concern ought to be aimed at Biden as well.

Is he altogether in the head?

Threatening China with war if they invade Taiwan? Okay, what if he comes around to that frame of mind in regard to Ukraine too?

And let's face it the argument over whether Ukraine was once a part of Russia or whether Taiwan once a part of China is not exactly cut and dry.

Different historical narratives here to say the least.

Anyway, let's keep an eye on Biden as well. Him here in America with 1,357 nuclear warheads currently deployed and Putin in Russia with 1,456...

What could possibly go wrong?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by iambiguous »

The "deep state" and nuclear war...or other "Apocalyptic Scenarios"

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/26/us/i ... rders.html

'WASHINGTON — Newly disclosed documents have shed a crack of light on secret executive branch plans for apocalyptic scenarios — like the aftermath of a nuclear attack — when the president may activate wartime powers for national security emergencies.

Until now, public knowledge of what the government put into those classified directives, which invoke emergency and wartime powers granted by Congress or otherwise claimed by presidents, has been limited to declassified descriptions of those developed in the early Cold War. In that era, they included steps like imposing martial law, rounding up people deemed dangerous and censoring news from abroad.

It has not been clear what is in the modern directives — known as presidential emergency action documents — because under administrations of both parties, none have been made public or shown to Congress.'


One can't help but wonder what the equivalent of this is in Moscow. Particularly of interest would be this: Who gets squirreled away to live on through the "nuclear winter" and who does not?

It's one thing to send the nukes when you know that you -- and your loved ones? -- will survive the conflagration, and another thing when you won't.

The "existential factor" that is decidedly "subjective" for all of us.
promethean75
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by promethean75 »

The Ukraine war isn't real. It's being staged in an unknown (to the public) location in Russia called area 52. If china invades Taiwan, that too will likely be a production. There's an area 53 in Asia somewhere allegedly.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by iambiguous »

From the NYT

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/27/opin ... china.html

Oriana Skylar Mastro
Ms. Mastro is an expert on China’s military and security policy.

'President Biden’s recent trip to Asia nearly went off without a hitch — until Taiwan came up. Mr. Biden was asked whether the United States would respond “militarily” if China sought to retake the self-ruled island by force.

“Yes,” he said. “That’s the commitment we made.”

'It was one of the most explicit U.S. defense guarantees for Taiwan in decades, appearing to depart from a longtime policy of “strategic ambiguity.” But it’s far from certain that the United States could hold off China.

'I have been involved in dozens of war games and tabletop exercises to see how a conflict would turn out. Simply put, the United States is outgunned. At the very least, a confrontation with China would be an enormous drain on the U.S. military without any assured outcome that America could repel all of China’s forces. Mr. Biden’s comments may be aimed at deterring a Chinese attack, and hopefully they will.

'After a decades-long military modernization, China has the world’s largest navy and the United States could throw far fewer ships into a Taiwan conflict. China’s missile force is also thought to be capable of targeting ships at sea to neutralize the main U.S. tool of power projection, aircraft carriers.'


And...

'I’m not the only one who’s worried. A 2018 congressionally mandated assessment warned that America could face a “decisive military defeat” in a war over Taiwan, citing China’s increasingly advanced capabilities and myriad U.S. logistical difficulties. Several top former U.S. defense officials have reached similar conclusions.

'Mr. Biden’s remarks were made in the context of Ukraine, and America’s failure to prevent that war may be driving his thinking on Taiwan. Mr. Biden may be calculating that Russia’s setbacks in Ukraine will give China pause and that guaranteed U.S. intervention in a conflict over Taiwan would cost Beijing too much, even if it took the island.

'But comparing Ukraine and Taiwan is problematic. Beijing views Taiwan — self-ruled since 1949 — as an integral part of Chinese territory since ancient times, a significantly deeper attachment than Vladimir Putin’s obsession with Ukraine. Reuniting the island with the mainland is one of the Chinese Communist Party’s most cherished goals, and China would see U.S. intervention as a bitter betrayal of the “one China” principle — the recognition that China and Taiwan belong together, which Washington has endorsed since the 1970s.'


What isn't mentioned here is China's nukes. Estimates range from 200 to 400 nuclear warheads. Not nearly as large as Russia or America, but how many nuclear bombs does it take to devastate the planet?
Post Reply